I haven’t seen Democrats so snarky since Republicans freed their slaves.

Well, how would you feel if you had your slaves taken away from you without compensation? It's legal theft plain and simple.

True. But let’s be honest the democrat controlled inner cities resemble slave plantations in many ways; poor housing conditions, breakup of the nuclear family, population dependent on support... looks like Democrats got their slaves back anyway.

The crisis for the Democratic Party came in the late 1850s as Democrats increasingly rejected national policies demanded by the Southern Democrats. The demands were to support slavery outside the South. Southerners insisted that full equality for their region required the government to acknowledge the legitimacy of slavery outside the South. The Southern demands included a fugitive slave law to recapture runaway slaves; opening Kansas to slavery; forcing a pro-slavery constitution on Kansas; acquire Cuba (where slavery already existed); accepting the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court; and adopting a federal slave code to protect slavery in the territories. President Buchanan went along with these demands, but Douglas refused and proved a much better politician than Buchanan, though the bitter battle lasted for years and permanently alienated the Northern and Southern wings.[21]

When the new Republican Party formed in 1854 on the basis of refusing to tolerate the expansion of slavery into the territories, many northern Democrats (especially Free Soilers from 1848) joined it. The Republicans in 1854 now had a majority in most, but not all of the Northern states and it had practically no support South of the Mason–Dixon line. The formation of the new short-lived Know-Nothing Party allowed the Democrats to win the presidential election of 1856.[20] Buchanan, a Northern "Doughface" (his base of support was in the pro-slavery South), split the party on the issue of slavery in Kansas when he attempted to pass a federal slave code as demanded by the South. Most Democrats in the North rallied to Senator Douglas, who preached "Popular Sovereignty" and believed that a Federal slave code would be undemocratic.[22]

The Democratic Party was unable to compete with the Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. The Republicans claimed that the Northern Democrats, including Doughfaces such as Pierce and Buchanan, as well as advocates of popular sovereignty such as Stephen A. Douglas and Lewis Cass, were all accomplices to Slave Power. The Republicans argued that slaveholders (all of them Democrats) had seized control of the federal government and were blocking the progress of liberty.[23]

To vote for Stephen A. Douglas in Virginia, a man deposited the ticket issued by the party in the official ballot boxIn 1860, the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The Democrats split over the choice of a successor to President Buchanan along Northern and Southern lines: factions of the party provided two separate candidacies for President in the election of 1860, in which the Republican Party gained ascendancy.[24]

Some Southern Democratic delegates followed the lead of the Fire-Eaters by walking out of the Democratic National Convention at Charleston's Institute Hall in April 1860 and were later joined by those who, once again led by the Fire-Eaters, left the Baltimore Convention the following June when the convention rejected a resolution supporting extending slavery into territories whose voters did not want it. The Southern Democrats nominated the pro-slavery incumbent Vice President, John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, for President and General Joseph Lane, former governor of Oregon, for Vice President.[25]

The Northern Democrats proceeded to nominate Douglas of Illinois for President and former Governor of Georgia Herschel Vespasian Johnson for Vice President, while some southern Democrats joined the Constitutional Union Party, backing its nominees (who had both been prominent Whig leaders), former Senator John Bell of Tennessee for President and the politician Edward Everett of Massachusetts for Vice President. This fracturing of the Democrats left them powerless. Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th President of the United States. Douglas campaigned across the country calling for unity and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri and New Jersey. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states, coming in second in the Electoral vote, but third in the popular vote.[25]

The truth from DemocratEditPedia? No thanks. The article even says it's missing information, so please "expand" those sections. lol

Here's the truth. You won't find a SINGLE registry where a Republican owned a SINGLE slave. This challenge was opened by Dinesh D'Souza back in 2009 to all academic circles, and NO ONE has yet to find a single historical record of a Republican owning a slave.

A Harvard Professor thought he had found ONE slave owned by a Republican, he had found a record of Ulysses S. Grant owning ONE slave brought into community property through marriage.

This would literally be devastating for the DNC since they rely upon 90%+ of the black vote to keep the offices they have.

Yup. And they can't take a reduced figure of say, just 75% and make it up with other votes, either. Because of how the geographic distribution of black vote vis a vis the other voters they would be trying to make up for.